ORDER : V. Sujatha, J. Both these Criminal Petitions arise out of same FIR and, therefore, they have been heard and are being decided together by way of this Common Order. 2. These Criminal Petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "Cr.P.C.") are filed seeking to quash the proceedings against the petitioners/A1 to A3 in Crime No.37 of 2018 on the file of the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, A.P., for the offences under sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.13630 of 2018 is arrayed as accused No.1 and the petitioners in Crl.P.No.13563 of 2018 are arrayed as accused No. 2 and 3 in the above said Crime. Accused No.1 is the husband and accused No.2 and 3 are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the 2nd respondent i.e., defacto complainant. 3. The 2nd respondent herein/defacto complainant filed a complaint before the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Vijayawada on 09.11.2018, wherein it is stated that the second marriage of the defacto complainant was performed with the accused No.1/ i.e., the petitioner in Crl.P.No.13630 of 2018, and at the time of marriage, her parents gave a diamond ring, a chain, a gold Kadiyam worth Rs.10 lakhs to her husband. After the marriage, she went to Bilaspur along with her husband, wherein the husband of the defacto complainant and his parents used to harass her daily to get registered all the properties in her name. In the month of June 2017, at request of her husband, both the defacto complainant and her husband, i.e. A1, went to Europe trip and there also her husband abused her mentally and physically for getting the property from her parents. Thereafter, they come back to Bilaspur, the mother-in-law of the petitioner used to say that they expected huge properties and a good match for her son with a property worth Rs.100 Crores, but since her son intended to marry her as she looks beautiful, they have agreed for the marriage. If the defacto complainant wants to live with her husband, immediately she should go and get registered the property worth Rs.100 Crores on her name. Husband of the defacto complainant also used to force her to hear the words of his parents, else threatened to desert her and marry another girl, thereby abused and harassed her. 4. If the defacto complainant wants to live with her husband, immediately she should go and get registered the property worth Rs.100 Crores on her name. Husband of the defacto complainant also used to force her to hear the words of his parents, else threatened to desert her and marry another girl, thereby abused and harassed her. 4. As the marriage of the defacto complainant was a second marriage, she did not inform about the harassment of her husband to her parents, and when she was in Bilaspur, her husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law have forcibly took signatures on some stamp papers and promissory notes. Thereafter, A1 left the defacto complainant at Vijayawada and went back to Bilaspur without informing anybody. From there they used to call and threaten the defacto complainant that unless she got all her properties registered on her name, A1 will give divorce and, as there was no alternative the defacto complainant informed the things to her parents. Thereafter, parents of the defacto complainant along with some elders namely Kolli Gandhi, GVV Satyanarayana, went to Bilaspur. There, on behalf of A1 to A3, one Auditor by name Murali did not allow the defacto complainant and her parents to meet her husband and also abused her parents and others accompanying them. It is informed that they are performing another marriage to the husband of the defacto complainant and further threatened her parents with dire consequences. As there is no other go, out of fear the defacto complainant and her parents came back to Vijayawada. Therefore, having fear of threat to their lives from her in-laws, the defacto complainant requested to take necessary action against her husband, mother-in-law, father-in-law and auditor one Krishnarjuna Rao. Accordingly, the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, A.P., registered the complaint made by the defacto complainant as a case in Crime No.37 of 2018 against A1 to A4 for the offences under sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC. Present Criminal Petitions are filed to quash the said proceedings. 5. This Court on 06.03.2019 granted interim stay of arrest of the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions. 6. Heard Mr.N.Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. 5. This Court on 06.03.2019 granted interim stay of arrest of the petitioners in both the Criminal Petitions. 6. Heard Mr.N.Ashwini Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.K.Rathanga Pani Reddy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent as well as learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing for the 1st respondent-State. 7. Perused the material on record. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the allegations taken in the compliant prima facie do not satisfy the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offences and even after recording the fact at column No.5 of the FIR that the place of occurrence took place at accused house at Bilaspur, Chattisgarh, registered the FIR No.37 of 2018 on 04th June 2018 on the file of the Women Police Station, Vijayawada, based on the alleged incidents took place in Bilaspur; therefore, the Women Police Station of Vijayawada has no jurisdiction, which is contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar's and Rajesh Sharma's cases. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further relied on the following decisions : 1. Varala Bharath Kumar and another Vs. State of Telangana and another, (2017) 9 SCC 413 2. Kahkashan Kausar and another V. State of Bihar and others, (2022) 6 SCC 599 3. Rajan and another V. State of Madhya Pradesh and another, 2023 SCC OnLine MP 2391 @ para 12 4. Prithvish Roy V. Stat of West Bengal and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 1058 5. Rakesh Boraiah and others V. Public Prosecutor, 2023 SCC AP 1385 10. Having heard the submissions made by the learned counsels and on perusal of the material available on record, the point for determination that arises in this case is as follows : Whether there are any justifiable grounds for quashment of the proceedings against the Petitioners/Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.37 of 2018 on the file of the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, A.P., for the offences under sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC? 11. A bare perusal of Section 482 makes it clear that the Code envisages that inherent powers of the High Court are not limited or affected so as to make orders as may be necessary; (i) to give effect to any order under the Code or, (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or, otherwise (iii) to secure ends of justice. A court while sitting in Section 482 jurisdiction is not functioning as a court of appeal or a court of revision. It must exercise its powers to do real and substantial justice, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. These powers must be invoked for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice, which are against sound principles of criminal jurisprudence. 12. The decision rendered by the Hon‘ble Apex Court in State of Haryana and others v. Bhajanlal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 is considered as the guiding torch in the application of Section 482. At paras 102 and 103, the circumstances are spelt out as follows; "102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice." 13. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in matrimonial matters, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and this Court has delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, held as follows : “18. In the context of quashment of criminal proceedings initiated in matrimonial matters, the Hon‘ble Supreme Court and this Court has delivered numerous decisions. It is relevant to refer to a few, at this juncture. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam v. State of Bihar, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 141, held as follows : “18. The above-mentioned decisions clearly demonstrate that this court has at numerous instances expressed concern over the misuse of section 498A IPC and the increased tendency of implicating relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes, without analysing the long term ramifications of a trial on the complainant as well as the accused. It is further manifest from the said judgments that false implication by way of general omnibus allegations made in the course of matrimonial dispute, if left unchecked would result in misuse of the process of law. Therefore, this court by way of its judgments has warned the courts from proceeding against the relatives and in-laws of the husband when no prima facie case is made out against them. 22. Therefore, upon consideration of the relevant circumstances and in the absence of any specific role attributed to the accused appellants, it would be unjust if the Appellants are forced to go through the tribulations of a trial, i.e., general and omnibus allegations cannot manifest in a situation where the relatives of the complainant's husband are forced to undergo trial. It has been highlighted by this court in varied instances, that a criminal trial leading to an eventual acquittal also inflicts severe scars upon the accused, and such an exercise must therefore be discouraged.” 14. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667 , the Apex Court held as under : 24. A three-Judge Bench (of which one of us, Bhandari, J. was the author of the judgment) of this Court in Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal, (2007) 12 SCC 1 comprehensively examined the legal position. The court came to a definite conclusion and the relevant observations of the court are reproduced in para 24 of the said judgment as under:— “Inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great caution and only when such exercise is justified by the tests specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. Authority of the court exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute. “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavour to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquillity of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband's close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancor, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband's relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful.” 15. Before going to the discussion, for better appreciation, it would be relevant to note the provisions of Sections 323, 498-A and 506 IPC, which are extracted hereunder : “Section 323 : Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. Section 498-A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 498-A: Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"— (a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or (b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. Section 506 IPC : Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc – and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, of with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both." 16. In the case on hand, a perusal of the material on record would go to show that all the petitioners herein/ accused persons i.e., A1 to A3 are residents of Bilaspur, Chattisgarth State and the defacto complainant got married to the accused No.1 on 09.04.2017. It is alleged that the defacto complainant and the accused No.1 went on trip to Europe in the month of June 2017, wherein the accused No.1 abused her mentally and physically. Thereafter the defacto complainant given complaint on 04.06.2018, which was registered as FIR No.337 of 2018 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada for the offences under Section 498-A, 384, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Thereafter the defacto complainant given complaint on 04.06.2018, which was registered as FIR No.337 of 2018 on the file of Patamata Police Station, Vijayawada for the offences under Section 498-A, 384, 506 IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. Subsequently, in the course of meditation, the same was compromised before the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Vijayawada, and the defacto compliant agreed to live with her husband i.e., A1, at Bilaspur. Accordingly, A1 sent a flight ticket to the complainant inviting her to live with him Bilaspur after mediation by the Mandal Services Authority. Subsequently, basing on the incidents that happened when the defacto complainant went to Bilaspur, after coming back to Vijayawada, she lodged a complaint alleging the incidents that took in Bilaspur which was registered as FIR No.37 of 2018 dated 09.11.2018 for the offences under Sections 323, 506 and 498-A IPC. As seen from the complaint, the incidents as alleged by the defacto complainant took place at Bilaspur, therefore, the Women Police Station of Vijayawada have no jurisdiction. 17. Furthermore, all the accusations that have been made, as per the complaint, are alleged to have taken place in Bilaspur and moreover, the accused/petitioners were residing at Bilaspur, though the defacto complainant alleged that the accused No.1 worked in Kamineni Hospital Vijayawada, there is no mention of the specific date or time. Except omnibus allegations, there is absolutely no specific accusation against the petitioners, to constitute the alleged offences, within the short period of her matrimonial life. 18. As seen from the complaint, there are specific allegations against A1 that he beat the defacto complainant, and not provided any food when she went to Bilaspur on 02.11.2018, her husband/A1 kept her in a separate Flat in Green Pooja apartments. Though learned counsel argued at length, the averments made in the FIR and the contents of the complaint prima facie disclose accusations against A1, therefore, the matter required to be investigated by the police; hence, this Court is of the view that it is only desirable to dismiss the Criminal Petition against A1. 19. Except omnibus allegations, no prima facie case is made out against A2 and A3 and there are no specific dates of instances have been mentioned in the complaint against the petitioners/A2 and A3. All the allegations that were made against them are either vague or general in nature. 19. Except omnibus allegations, no prima facie case is made out against A2 and A3 and there are no specific dates of instances have been mentioned in the complaint against the petitioners/A2 and A3. All the allegations that were made against them are either vague or general in nature. More so, the allegations in the complaint against these petitioners would not come within the definition of 'cruelty' as defined under Section 498-A IPC. 20. Time and again the Hon‘ble Apex Court and this Court categorically held that a tendency has been developed for roping in all the relatives of the husband in dowry harassment made in order to pressurize the immediate family of the husband [Kahkashan Kausar alias Sonam v State of Bihar, (2022) 6 SCC 599 ]. As there are no specific overt acts committed by the petitioners i.e. A2 and A3 to constitute the alleged offences and except omnibus allegations, there is absolutely no specific accusation against A2 and A3. 21. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that continuation of the impugned proceedings against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.13563 of 2018/A2 and A3 is nothing but an abuse of process of the Court. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view, that there are justifiable grounds to exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to prevent abuse of the process of the Court and to secure the ends of justice. 22. In result, the Criminal Petition No.13630 of 2018 filed by the petitioner/A1 is dismissed and the Criminal Petition No.13563 of 2018 filed by the petitioners/A2 and A3 is allowed. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioners/A2 and A3 in Crime No.37 of 2018 on the file of the Station House Officer, Women Police Station, Vijayawada City, Krishna District, A.P. are hereby quashed. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Petition shall stand closed.